In order for hearsay statements to be admitted under OEC 803(18a)(b), a notice of intent must adequately identify the substance of the evidence introduced and the witness or the method by which the statements will be introduced.

Defendant appealed conviction of sodomy in the first degree and sexual abuse in the first degree. On appeal the Court addressed three assignments of error: 1) whether the State’s notice of intent to offer hearsay statements made by the victim was sufficient under OEC 803(18a)(b), 2) whether the court erred in admitting a letter that Defendant wrote to his wife, and 3) whether the court erred by requiring Defendant’s wife to testify. On the first issue the Court held that State’s notice was sufficient because it satisfactorily described the substance of the victim’s statements and the method by which the statements would be presented. The Court noted that the State referenced only a small number of documents in its notice and gave specific details as to: 1) who made each statement, 2) when each statement was made, and 3) the specific discovery pages where each statement could be located. On the second issue the Court held that Defendant failed to preserve his assignment of error because he did not object to the letter being admitted at trial. On the third issue the Court held that any error made in allowing Defendant’s wife to testify was harmless because her short testimony was either an accumulation of other evidence presented or not prejudicial to Defendant. Affirmed.